Movie Review: All About Steve

All About Steve (2009) 

Directed by Phil Traill

Written by Kim Barker

Starring Sandra Bullock, Bradley Cooper, Thomas Haden Church, Ken Jeong

Release Date September 4th, 2009

Published September 4th, 2009

You don't watch a movie like All About Steve as much as witness it. Like a crime in progress or a car accident, you were there, you were slightly traumatized and later, in a daze of disbelief, you recounted your experience to authorities. All About Steve is such a remarkably bad movie that it may actually be an insult to a car wreck to make the comparison.

All About Steve began life as a drama about a mentally challenged woman whose syndrome involves an obsession with crossword puzzles. Through a pity blind date she meets a man who was unaware that he was going out with a handicapped person. After being accosted by her, he tries to reject her in a way that spares her feelings. Instead, he stokes her fire and she begins a cross country trek to show her love for him.

It was to be a dramatic journey of self discovery for this spunky mentally challenged gal and a role that would deliver to whomever played it; a chance to show real dramatic range. Somewhere along the line things were derailed in a fashion that even Amtrak could not imagine.

OK, I was lying about the film's origin as a drama. As far as I know, All About Steve is everything its creators intended it to be. It is a broad, boneheaded, nonsensical romantic comedy about one crazy person chasing a sad wretch across state lines aided by people of similar diminished mental capacities. What anyone saw in this remarkably misguided screenplay is truly baffling. 

Sandra Bullock stars as Mary. She somehow subsists as a crossword puzzle creator. We are told that this is her only job and that she only publishes in one paper, once a week. If there is a newspaper in this country paying a crossword puzzle maker a living wage for one days work then I think we know why the papers are going out of business.

Mary has no social life. So, her meddling parents set her up on a blind date. This poor, doomed soul is Steve played by Bradley Cooper. Subjected to 10 minutes with Mary, in which she says about a million words and attempts to have sex with him, before they have even pulled away from the curb of her parents' home.

Steve blows her off nicely but saying he has to work and 'wishes she could come' he unwittingly sets himself on a path to disaster. Soon, Mary is fired from her job for somehow publishing an all Steve crossword (How did it get in the paper? All she did was drop it off? Did they fire all the editors but keep the type setter and and the wacko crossword chick? Logical questions are not welcome here.), Mary hits the road to follow Steve to work.

Work for Steve is as a cameraman for a fictional cable news outlet. His reporter pal, Thomas Haden Church, thinks Mary the stalker is a funny prank and encourages her by repeatedly telling her where the crew is headed next. Mary follows to a protest involving a baby with three legs, a hurricane/tornado and finally to a sinkhole that somehow swallowed several deaf children.

The three legged baby, if you don't get the joke already, is one of a number of juvenile jokes in this blisteringly stupid movie. A baby with three legs is the subject of protesters who want to the leg cut off and those who don't who then get to chant 'save the third leg'. If you need the joke explained maybe you are the audience for this movie.

Wildly moronic, utterly inept and a just plain disaster, All About Steve is not merely one of the worst films of 2009, it's a candidate for worst of the last decade. Poor Bradley Cooper seems absolutely lost in the morass of this idiocy. Sandra Bullock on the other hand indulges every last moronic twist.

I could almost recommend this bizarrely horrendous movie just for the explanation that Bullock as Mary gives for her blindingly red boots. It's a brief bit of dialogue but it is so astoundingly doltish that you can't help but indulge a condescending, ear splitting, gut laugh, not quite what the movie intended for this moment.

If I see a movie as bad as All About Steve again this year, I may have to quit the critic biz. There is a limit to the mindblowingly awful that one person can endure. I think I am safe. All About Steve sets such a high bar of badness it would be remarkable if anything could approach it.

Movie Review: Vampire's Suck

Vampire's Suck (2010) 

Directed by Jason Friedberg, Eric Seltzer

Written by Jason Friedberg, Eric Seltzer 

Starring Jenn Proske, Matt Lanter, Ken Jeong 

Release Date August 18th, 2010

Published August 20th, 2010

There is a style of comedy that has failed to develop over the past decade and yet it is still widely practiced. Call it the comedy of association. By mentioning something or mimicking something you are automatically doing something funny. That's the theory. In practice, this style has lead to a series of abysmal movies from “Epic Movie” to “Date Movie” to everything except the first “Scary Movie.”

The makers of these movies are convinced that if they make mention of something, or mimic it well, then the act of doing so is automatically funny. In the new comedy Vampire's Suck this style means mentions of Tiger Woods and Lady Gaga but nothing particularly funny about either of them.

The premise is a humorous take down of the “Twilight” series. Becca (Jenn Proske), get Becca-Bella, anyway, is the new girl in Sporks Washington, again Sporks-forks, anyway. Becca is a sad, lonely outcast as demonstrated by the music on her IPod titled Sad, Lonely, Outcast music.

At school Becca meets Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter), get it Sull... oh nevermind. Edward is a Vampire and he and Becca are destined to fall in love. Also falling for Becca is Jacob (Chris Riggi) who happens to be turning slowly into a dog, I won't give away the big brilliant reveal of what kind of dog but I'm sure things like Edward Sullen give you a strong impression of the kind of humor we're dealing with here.

There really is nothing terrible about “Vampire's Suck.” The cast is game and seems up for any kind of humiliation. Actress Jenn Proske does an exceptional imitation of Kristen Stewart nailing the tics and vocal manners that so many have noted in Stewart's performance as Bella. Sadly, the imitation is better suited for a dinner party bit than for a feature film.

Once the premise is established, in the first 2 minutes of the film, the makers of “Vampire's Suck” tick through references to the first two “Twilight” movies from Edward's introduction to Becca; he wears a hazmat suit because of her scent, to Edward's first visit to Becca's bedroom which ends with an epic blast of gas, as seen in the film's trailer.

One cannot complain when an intentionally dumb movie turns out dumb. What can be complained about is that the film is dumb without wit or purpose. Writer-directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer demonstrate a comic theory that states if something is funny then just mentioning it is automatically funny. Mention Tiger Woods scandal, automatically funny. Mention Lady Gaga, automatically funny.

The theory does not require some witty reference to Woods' troubles or for the film's Lady Gaga surrogate to do anything funny, just featuring them is funny enough. The film fails to offer funny exaggerations of these pop culture memes, the only aim seems to glom on to the existing cultural cache, the seeming agreement among us all that these people are funny to talk about. This theory is a massive failure.

The same theory applies to the film's central fodder, the “Twilight movies.” Friedberg and Seltzer assume that just dressing their characters like those in Twilight and giving them variations on the “Twilight” character names, then automatically these characters are funny.

The “Twilight” movies with their overwrought angst, new style vampires and pretentious Puritanism are ripe for a good send up. It's a big wide target that “Vampire's Suck” somehow misses by a mile. There is no insight, no attempt to understand and expose the flaws of the series. There is merely pale imitation and dull reference.

I laughed once during “Vampire's Suck.” The scene involved the Becca character posting something on Stephanie Meyer's Twitter feed. Sadly, one good joke is not nearly enough to recommend Vampire's Suck. There are still opportunities in this genre. “Airplane” and “The Naked Gun” movies remain cultural touchstones because this type of send up movie has so much potential. That potential is unrealized in “Vampire's Suck.”

Movie Review: Wonder Park

Wonder Park (2019) 

Directed by Uncredited

Written by Josh Applebaum, Andrew Nemec

Starring Brianna Denski, Matthew Broderick, Ken Jeong 

Release Date March 15th, 2019 

Published March 16th, 2019 

In January of 2018 Paramount Pictures fired director Dylan Brown from the animated movie Amusement Park over allegations of inappropriate behavior. Exactly what that behavior was we do not know. What we do know is that, more than one year later, Amusement Park, now titled Wonder Park, has arrived in theaters and it plays like a movie that was lacking a director. Now, that’s easy to say under the circumstances, but I genuinely feel that the movie lacks a rudder, a steady hand guiding the ship. Wonder Park is a sloppy amalgam of cartoon tropes without a strong through-line.

Wonder Park stars the voice of Brianna Denski as June, an imaginative young girl who spends her time dreaming up elaborate theme park rides that her mother, voiced by Jennifer Garner, whispers into the ear of her stuffed monkey named Peanut, voiced by Norbert Leo Butz, who creates them with his magic marker. Hours and days are dedicated to the elaborate design of Wonder Park which mom and dad, voiced by Matthew Broderick, allow to take over the entire home.

This is necessary as when June tried to bring Wonder Park to life outside the house, she nearly destroyed the neighborhood. June created a monstrous loop de loop roller coaster out of any pieces of free wood she and her friends could muster together. Naturally, things fly off the rails quickly and June and her friend Banky, voiced by Oev Michael Urbas, are nearly run down by a truck before crashing through every fence in the neighborhood.

Mom is upset but not too much and the two set about making Wonderland into their in-home project. This goes on until mom contracts plot cancer. Mom has to go away for a while to undergo treatment and without mom around, June doesn’t feel right continuing Wonderland without her. June takes down all of the dozens upon dozens of models she’d built and takes the many stuffed animals that featured in her fantasy and puts them all in a box in a closet.

So distraught is June that she begins to slavishly dedicate herself to her father’s health and well being. She fawns over him and questions his ability to care for himself until he finally decides that she should get out of the house. June is to be whisked off to math camp for the summer but believing that dad cannot possibly get by without her, June ditches the math camp bus and ventures into the forest intent on getting back home.

June is soon distracted when she finds a small piece of her Wonderland blueprint moving magically through the air. She chases after the scrap of paper and it leads her deep into the woods where she stumbles over the entrance to Wonderland. It turns out, her imagination had manifested in a real form and was thriving until recently. Suddenly, a black cloud appears to be sucking up all of Wonderland and appears ready to consume the last of her stuffed animal friends when June arrives.

Manning the park are Greta (Mila Kunis), a wild boar and de facto leader, Steve (John Oliver), a cowardly porcupine, Boomer (Ken Hudson Campbell), a narcoleptic bear, and Gus and Cooper (Kenan Thompson and Ken Jeong), a pair of woodchuck brothers always bounding into trouble teeth first. Together, they have been battling zombie stuffed monkeys in a war to keep what little of the park is left.

Where is Peanut? That’s a little touch of mystery that the film wastes little time giving away. I won’t spoil it here but the little weight given to Peanut’s apparent disappearance is pretty weak. It should mean something that the biggest avatar for June’s mom in this story is missing but instead, the movie trips over itself getting Peanut back into the story and undermines what I would assume would be the deeper meaning of his absence.

Wonder Park wants to be something on par with Inside Out, Pixar’s ingenious and emotional trip into the emotional and intellectual world of a young girl. Unfortunately, Wonder Park lacks any of that film's substance and nuance. The characters aren’t nearly as memorable and Wonder Park is not nearly as funny as Inside Out. Indeed, Wonder Park pales in every comparison to Inside Out, even the animation which is arguably the best thing about Wonder Park, can’t hold a candle to anything Pixar has ever created, let alone the masterpiece that is Inside Out.

Weak narrative structure, meaningless metaphors and a shambling pace are the kinds of things that a good director might be able to work out. Unfortunately, Wonder Park didn’t have a director to help iron out those problems or to even patch them over well. Without that guiding hand you can sense just how much not having a director affected the failed final product that is Wonder Park. This lack of a guiding hand even extends to something as simple as the title. Despite the fact that everyone in the movie refers to Wonder Park as Wonderland, no one bothered to change the title. The words Wonder Park never appear in the movie and stand out as a symbol of the lack of focus that plagues the entirety of this animated adventure.

Movie Review Penguins of Madagascar

Penguins of Madagascar (2016) 

Directed by Eric Darnell, Simon J. Smith

Written by Michael Colton, John Aboud 

Starring Tom McGrath, Chris Miller, Christopher Knights, Benedict Cumberbatch, Ken Jeong, John Malkovich

Release Date November 26th, 2016

Published November 27th, 2016

What is the point of reviewing "Penguins of Madagascar?" I know this movie was not made with my particular sensibilities in mind. I could say it's my job to appraise ``Penguins of Madagascar '' and other such films but you know that already and it doesn't really justify the point either; unless you're as deeply concerned about my work obligations as I am. 

So, why do I write about "Penguins of Madagascar?" I don't know, why don't I write something and see if I arrive at a point. That could be fun, or funny or a complete waste of both of our time. 

Skipper, Rico, Kowalski and Private are side characters generated for the series of "Madagascar" cartoons that justified their existence by giving big stars like Ben Stiller and Chris Rock major paychecks that they otherwise might not have gotten. The Penguins then proven to be so winning with audiences that they were spun off for their own TV series on Nickelodeon. I have never seen, nor do I have any knowledge of the cartoon series beyond the fact of its existence. I can assume that because it exists, the Penguins must be popular. 

"Penguins of Madagascar" serves as an origin story for how our four flippered heroes came together and became super secret government agents of some sort. First, we see them as children rescuing the egg that would become Private, the cute one. This will be Private's journey even more than the rest as he attempts to rise from being 'the cute one' to being a valued member of the team, Skipper's favored phrase for praising Rico and Kowalski. 

Private gets his chance to improve his status when the foursome is kidnapped by Dave the Octopus (John Malkovich), a revenge seeking former zoo-mate from the Bronx zoo. Seems everywhere Dave went he briefly became a star before the Penguins showed up, upstaged him with their cuteness, and left him to rot in under-filled tanks with zero adoring fans. Now, Dave wants revenge, not just on our heroes but all Penguins everywhere. 

Attempting to thwart Dave is "North Wind" a super-secret spy organization headed up by Agent Classified (Benedict Cumberbatch) and his team of wild animal heroes that includes the voices of Ken Jeong, Annette Mahendru and Peter Stormare. You will have to see the movie to get the joke about the name Agent Classified, it's a runner and it's kind of amusing. 

I've painted all of the pictures of the plot that are necessary so where do I go from here? How about.... Is "Penguins of Madagascar '' funny? Yeah, kind of. I realize that's not a great answer but this isn't a great movie either. The jokes are groaning familiar from other modern referential and self-aware animated movies. There isn't a great deal to the modest joy of "Penguins of Madagascar '' that you couldn't get from a 500th viewing of "Despicable Me" or any of the "Madagascar '' movies. 

In fact, the more I think of it, the less reason there is for "Penguins of Madagascar '' to exist at all. The animation isn't too far off from a random video game. The humor is derivative, the characters fun and cute but nothing much about them is memorable beyond one of them having the lovingly English tones of Benedict Cumberbatch. The lead performers are all unknown voice actors who are fine to listen to but don't leave much of an impression. 

Ahh, but you ask: Will my kids like it? Probably? It depends how discerning your child is. If you have a kid with some flair and taste he or she will likely squirm through the movie in hopes of getting on to something more worthy of their attention. If you have a kid who just likes pretty colors, loud noise and animals that talk,. then yes, yes that child will likely enjoy, consume and forget "Penguins of Madagascar" in short order. 

So, have I justified writing about "Penguins of Madagascar?"

Movie Review The Goods Live Hard Sell Hard

The Goods Live Hard Sell Hard (2009) 

Directed by Neal Brennan

Written by Adam McKay, Will Ferrell, Kevin Messick, Chris Henchy

Starring Jeremy Piven, David Koechner, Kathryn Hahn, Ken Jeong, Jordan Spiro 

Release Date April 14th, 2009 

Published April 13th, 2009 

The makers of the comedy The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard, owe a deep debt, possibly even royalty payments, to John Landis who's 2004 documentary Slasher is undoubtedly the inspiration for this comedy about a group of mercenary car salesmen who stage massive sales for desperate car dealers. No mention is made in the credits or on the film's IMDB page of Slasher but I fear, honestly, litigation could be on order.

I had time to ponder this as I watched The Goods because this inconsistent comedy leaves a good deal of time for thinking about other things.

in The Goods Jeremy Piven plays Don Ready. His job, really, his life, is selling cars. With his for hire team of mercenary salesmen, Don is in a new city week after week with a new sale to run and new suckers to take advantage of. His latest job however, in the middle of nowhere town of Temecula(?) has some unexpected pitfalls.

Hired by Ben Selleck (James Brolin) to save his used car lot from bank foreclosure and taken over by his rival (Alan Thicke, in cameo), Don finds himself beginning to question his mercenary lifestyle. In the course of business Don meets and falls for Ivy (Jordan Spiro), Selleck's daughter. And then there is Blake (Jason Sadowski) , a Selleck employee who may or may not be Don's illegitimate son via a one night stand two decades earlier.

Meanwhile, Don's team are also meeting new challenges. Brent (David Koechner), the team finance guy, has to fend off the unwanted advances of Mr. Selleck. Babs (Kathryn Hahn), team eye candy, falls for Selleck's 10 year old son. Don't worry, he's a ten year old in the body of a thirtysomething and played by comic Rob Riggle. Jibby (Ving Rhames), the team's ethnic diversity, falls for a stripper and hopes to 'make love' for the first time.

Naturally, there is an enemy and he is played by Ed Helms as a rival car salesman who also happens to be engaged to Ivy and a member of a so-called 'Man band' whose claim to fame is once having opened for the group O-Town. If you think he has much hope of competing with Don Ready you probably haven't seen many movies.

The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard is yet another in a long line of comedies that tries to get past predictable plotting by being exceptionally raunchy. The formula is however kicked up a notch thanks to the casting of some of the best comic supporting players working today. The all star team of supporting players is lead by Ken Jeong (The Hangover, Role Models), Tony Hale (Arrested Development), Wendie Malick and Craig Robinson. This terrific group pull laughs like the pros that they are and they elevate the otherwise forgettable movie with their uncommon talents.

Not that the main cast isn't good. I really like Ving Rhames in a very non-typically vulnerable performance. David Koechner's performance never goes in the direction you expect it to and Kathryn Hahn more than holds her own against the veteran launchers like Koechner and Helms.

The one performance that is just a degree off is Jeremy Piven who seems adrift between being the Fonzie and the affable, likable lead. The balance is never found. Don Ready is something of a loser, so no cool to fall back on and he is never all that likable even when he is supposedly playing vulnerable and in love.

I don't know if Piven is miscast in the role but he is definitely one of the things in the movie that doesn't completely work. The other is the stilted direction of TV vet Neal Brennan. Underlining all his points, Brennan directs The Goods as if mimicking, even parodying, other raunchy comedies of recent years.

There is nothing to really set The Goods apart from other R-rated comedies. Is it funny? Yes, and for some that will be enough. Myself, I was hoping for something more. Oddly enough, that is likely the feeling of most people who buy cars from guys like Don Ready.

Movie Review The Hangover Part 2

The Hangover Part 2 (2011) 

Directed by Todd Phillips 

Written by Craig Mazan, Scot Armstrong, Todd Phillips 

Starring Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms, Ken Jeong, Justin Bartha, 

Release Date May 26th, 2011 

Published May 25th, 2011 

The working theory for "The Hangover Part 2" is '˜if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' The '˜it' in this case is the basic premise from the first film which is tweaked only with a location change. The characters, the jokes and even a few of the scenarios are almost exactly the same as they were in the original "The Hangover." And yet, "The Hangover Part 2" is truly as funny as or funnier than the original.

Stu's Getting Married

Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married and because his bride's (Jamie Chung) parents are from Thailand the wedding will be taking place there. Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Doug (Justin Bartha) are both coming to the wedding but Stu is not surprisingly reticent about inviting Allen (Zach Galifianakis). After all, Stu still puts napkins over his drinks since the first film, out of fear of being rufied again.

After a little pleading from Doug, Allen is invited and, no surprise, at all it happens again. The how and the why are part of the fun so I won't spoil it for you. The guys end up in Bangkok with, of all people, Chow (Ken Jeong), the gangster who the guys accidentally kidnapped in Las Vegas. This time, Chow is Allen's plus one at the wedding much to Stu's surprise.

Where's Teddy?

Among the slight changes to the original are of course the location and the missing guy. In the original they lost Doug, this time it's the bride's little brother, a 16 year old pre-med student named Teddy (Mason Lee). As in the first film our heroes have no memory of the night before and must retrace their wild night to figure out where Teddy is.

"The Hangover Part 2" is only slightly more outrageous than the first film but the few moments that go beyond the original film go well beyond. Do not go in thinking that director Todd Phillips and company have run out of ways to shock you because "The Hangover Part 2" goes places that would make "The Hangover Part 1" uncomfortable.

Paul Giamatti in, Liam Neeson out

Watch out for Paul Giamatti in a cameo as well as Mike Tyson but the much talked about Liam Neeson cameo is out. Director Todd Phillips has a funny cameo but you likely wouldn't recognize him, few people actually know what directors look like unless their name is Speilberg or Hitchcock. Nevertheless, Phillips is an over the top natural.

"The Hangover Part 2" rehashes just about every scenario from the first film, including seeing far too much of Ken Jeong sans clothes, and throws in a monkey for good measure. Zach Galfianakis once again steals scene after scene with his sweet, naive maniac act. Galifianakis plays the role of Alan so well that just a tilt of his head is enough to get a big laugh.

It's not for the faint of heart and definitely not for kids'"really, movie theaters shouldn't be allowed to show Hangover Part 2 in the same building as Kung Fu Panda 2, just to be safe--but I do recommend "The Hangover Part 2" for some very big, very outrageous laughs and a good deal of nostalgia left over from the first film.

Movie Review Furry Vengeance

Furry Vengeance (2010) 

Directed by Roger Kumble 

Written by Michael Karnes, Josh Gilbert

Starring Brendan Fraser, Brooke Shields, Ken Jeong 

Release Date April 30th, 2010

Published April 29th, 2010

Brenden Fraser is a terrific goofball. He's been one of Hollywood's best golf balls since his breakthrough role as the caveman teenager in "Encino Man." Guileless, earnest and most of all highly committed to whatever the role calls for, that's been the hallmark of Brendan Fraser's career. Whether he is tumbling down hills, getting punched in the face, or chased by Mummies, Scorpions or Dinosaurs, Fraser's winning goofball-ness never seems to fail.

Until now that is. On the surface, "Furry Vengeance," with its anthropomorphized animals and heavy reliance on slapstick, would seem right up Fraser's alley. Surfaces can be quite deceiving. Even with Fraser giving his sincere best, "Furry Vengeance" is a bitterly ugly family comedy dedicated to bizarre innuendo and below the belt humor that even Mr. Fraser can't save with that goofy mug of his.

In "Furry Vengeance" Brenden Fraser is Dan Sanders, a family man from Chicago who has uprooted his family, wife Tammy (Brook Shields) and son Tyler (Matt Prokop), to a forest area where he is to oversee the development of new suburban homes. Unfortunately for Dan, there are already residents in this neighborhood and they don't take kindly to strangers. These residents are a scrappy group of rodents and other woodland creature friends who are sentient enough to know when they are being threatened and savvy enough to fight back.

Soon, poor Dan is being kept up at night by birds and attacked during the day by skunks, all under the leadership of a crafty raccoon. In what is likely a nod to classic Looney Tunes shorts of the 50's, only Dan knows the animals are out to get him while everyone else, including his wife and son, just think he's going crazy.

The allusion to Looney Tunes is the only humor to be wrung from “Furry Vengeance.” I managed to kill several minutes of this belligerent farce by going back in my mind to the classic cartoon frog who sang opera but only to one poor schmoe and never in front of a crowd. The poor guy would repeatedly hear the frog perform beautiful arias and then attempt to show others only to have the frog act like a typical frog. That anecdote has only a passing connection to "Furry Vengeance." Apparently just writing about this movie inspires me to seek distraction.

Among the main oddities of "Furry Vengeance" is a propensity toward gags in the script that kids won't get or, depending on their age, should not get. The screenplay has an odd tendency toward sexual innuendo outside of a sexual situation. The credit sequence is easily the most jarring of the inappropriate humor in "Furry Vengeance" as the cast, kids included, sings along to a Kidz Bop-esque remix of Cypress Hill "Insane in the Membrane." This is wrong on so many levels that I cannot begin to number them in this space.

That said, allow me to address those who are already typing their complaint; I know this is a kids movie and not meant for someone like me. I don't have kids. That said, I feel that if I had children, no matter how much they whine, I would not bring them to see "Furry Vengeance."

Regardless of whether the film is pitched to the juvenile sense of humor, I demand something more mentally nutritious for my fictional child. "Furry Vengeance" arrives at a time when the brilliant "How to Train Your Dragon" is still in theaters. Anyone who chooses "Furry Vengeance" over the thrills, chuckles and honest to goodness, wisdom of "How to Train Your Dragon" needs their head examined.